The Husband Of One Wife

[Aquila]

And if remarriage is adultery in any way under grace, it's not unforgivable. I'd say it might disqualify from pulpit ministry though.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Jesus also told the healed lepper to show himself to the priest. Given that Christ explained this teaching in response to the Pharisee's question regarding the law, I believe this is pre-cross and isn't binding today. Paul demonstrates that this isn't a hard rule with the Pauline privilege to remarry under abandonment of a non believer.

You are losing me now... The teachings of Jesus were pre-cross and therefore not applicable? I have never heard such.

Also, Paul says this concerning remarriage:

"10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife."

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

You are losing me now... The teachings of Jesus were pre-cross and therefore not applicable? I have never heard such.

Also, Paul says this concerning remarriage:

"10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife."

True, that's why many believe divorce and remarriage is always a sin. As a general rule to please all interpretations, I believe churches shouldn't perform remarriages unless it's for the widowed. I also believe unless one were widowed they should be disqualified from pulpit ministry.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

You are losing me now... The teachings of Jesus were pre-cross and therefore not applicable? I have never heard such.

Some things Jesus taught were under the law, according to the law. Christ wouldn't have permitted Pauline privilege per the law.

Those abandoned by an unbeliever may remarry only under the covenant of grace.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Some things Jesus taught were under the law, according to the law. Christ wouldn't have permitted Pauline privilege per the law.

Those abandoned by an unbeliever may remarry only under the covenant of grace.

Don't add to the bible because you need an outlet. They are given license to divorce, not a second marriage license.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by berkeley

Don't add to the bible because you need an outlet. They are given license to divorce, not a second marriage license.

Then a second marriage would be sin. However, not an unforgivable one. I'm a divorcee, and odds are I'll remarry. Just being honest. If it's a sin to do so, I pray God knows my heart... and forgives me.

[Praxeas]

The bible never forbids a divorced person, divorced under the conditions set by Jesus, from remarrying

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The bible never forbids a divorced person, divorced under the conditions set by Jesus, from remarrying

The interpretation I heard most among brethren is that Jesus NEVER endorses remarriage. The use of "fornication" (sexual immorality) and not "adultery" indicates immorality during betrothal (as binding as marriage according Jewish custom; refer to Joseph's desire to "put away" Mary upon knowledge of pregnancy). This also explains why the "immorality clause" isn't found in the synoptics. Therefore I believe it's best to say that all divorce and remarriages are "sin", and have couples in second marriages fall on the grace of God.

This accomplishes upholding the sanctity of marriage, keeps the church free from having to determine guilt when divorce is rarely so cut and dry, and prevents having to go through theological gymnastics to justify remarriage. I'd sit a minister down for at least a year, if not disqualify them from pulpit ministry.

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Case In Point:

A Pastors wife falls away. She has an affair with multiple men. She divorces her husband. He is faithful to Christ remarries a few years later.

Is he the husband of one wife?

What do YOU think?

[Aquila]

I believe that Christ's point is that a second marriage adulterates the first marriage, thus those who divorce and remarry are adulterers. I do believe that God recognizes subsequent marriages. I believe this because Jesus acknowledged to the woman at the well that He knew that she had had "five husbands" in comparison to the man she was currently living with at the time. I can understand a pastor choosing not to unite divorced individuals in holy matrimony. I can also understand sitting a minister who remarries down for a period... if not disqualifying him indefinitely. I do believe that God can forgive those who remarry and sanctify their second marriage as a standing covenant. Personally, if I were a pastor I'd not perform weddings for those who had been divorced (keep in mind, I'm a divorcee so this would include me). I'd counsel those wishing to remarry and help them to find peace and the grace and peace of God but not perform a public wedding. I would suggest that they marry through the court, but recognize them as husband and wife from the pulpit for the sake of the congregation. I'd not allow the couple on the platform or to work in visible service for at least a year, as a general rule. They'd be aware of this policy from our counseling secessions, it wouldn't be a surprise. I'd be sure to have emphasized in counseling that this isn't so much as a "penalty" as it is a hedge of protection that allows them to focus on their new union without being highly visible among the saints.

The reason why I think it best for the church never to fully endorse second marriages is to avoid trying to determine who is "at fault" for the divorce. I've seen couples lie and get outright NASTY against their ex to justify a remarriage. I think it best to keep the church out of the mess. Whoever was "at fault" for the divorce isn't as important as healing and restoring those who have suffered from the pain of the divorce. Also, it is a very rare occasion wherein only one person is truly at fault. I've know of individuals who tried to pressure their spouses to be intimate with another another just be justified in their future plans to leave them. Thus you can't entirely place the blame on the spouse who "actively" engaged in immorality. I know of people who separated because a spouse abandoned them and the abandoned one was told by the church to not to file for divorce. The abandoning spouse didn't file either. As the "separation" lingered on for two or more years the spouse that was originally abandoned becomes lonely and falls into sin. Then the abandoning spouse comes back with a vengence and files for divorce on the grounds of adultery. Clearly, in this case, you can't place all of the blame on one of them. To keep the church out of the middle and out of all the DIRT that takes place in a divorce, I think it's best that the church not focus on who was at fault. But rather acknowledge that divorce and remarriage isn't God's perfect will, and thus it is sin in all circumstances regardless as to who was at fault. Then focus on healing the people involved by having them find the grace of God, address some of the issues they faced with their divorce if they are willing to counsel on them, and then allow them to remarry in a more private setting or through the courts.

This also keeps the church from having to jump through theological hoops to justify remarriage in a situation that the Scriptures do not address. For example, if a woman was brutalized repeatedly by her husband until she had to divorce him to protect herself and her children. Who would fault her for divorcing? Who would fault her for desiring to remarry another at some point? Some churches then jump through the theological hoop of saying that "fornication" breaks the marriage covenant.... therefore any behavior that breaks the marriage covenant to "love, honor, and cherish" justifies remarriage. While I see their point, I think it's speaking where Scripture is silent. All Scripture addresses is "putting away" on the grounds of "fornication". So I believe my position protects the church from having to wrest the Scriptures to justify remarriage for an obviously abused party wherein divorce was on grounds other than sexual unfaithfulness.

It allows for equal healing and restoration to all involved.

And it upholds the sanctity of marriage, identifying Jewish betrothal customs and why Christ uses the word "fornication" and not "adultery". In addition it answers why the "fornication" clause isn't found in Mark or Luke.

Mark 10:11
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Mark 10:12
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Luke 16:18
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Notice, no exception clause. Notice Matthew's exception clause:

Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

I believe that Matthew is speaking of unfaithfulness during betrothal (fornication), not after the wedding. Notice a case in point mentioned by Matthew himself:

Matthew 1:18-19
18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

Notice they were engaged. Notice that they had not be united in marriage as of yet. Notice that Joseph suspected her to be guilty of "fornication". Notice also that Joseph had to prepare for a formal "putting away" to break the engagement. I believe that this is what the exception clause in Matthew is addressing. Not actual "adultery".